|
|
|
|
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/29/2005 8:34:50 PM | | give me the direct quote in which you are referring to that Cheney said we invaded iraq or were invading iraq because they were behind 9/11 please | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/29/2005 11:16:08 PM | - yes Darjeeling, "Israel" figures prominently at all levels in the first three, so much so that I thought it wholly redundant to mention, however, for the benefit of Those Who Cannot See the Truth:
- I am gonna pose some thought provoking questions here that may be just a tad contentious, and in the New Facist Order may lead to my immediate arrest for sedition, but, here goes:
- Is it not entirely obvious to everyone, except the cognoscenti of the nutball far right, that the attack of 9/11 was aimed squarely at Jewish business interests and Jewish people specifically as targets due to their pervasive control exercised over American foreign policy in general? Are Americans in general comfortable with the fact that their country was invaded and taken over (like some kind of alien invasion scenario cooked up by hollywood - oh, gee, guess who runs that place, and aren't they fond of that particular storyline) starting during the 1920's and continuing at a rapid pace through to the fifties and on until today? Are Americans comfortable with having their entire national interest heavily skewed, co-opted and aligned with Jewish interests to the detriment of their own self-determination and very security? I hold these facts to be self evident, all one has to do is to look, very briefly, at their banking system and their political system - the evidence is everywhere. There was a time when they were a lot cooler about it, but today they are out in the open in much the same way that homosexuals have "come out of the closet". Names like Richard Perl keep popping up all the time in connection with political and business matters at the highest levels. A sorry state of affairs for a country that used to be proud, independent and much admired (especially at home). I wish that America could get back to that condition but it would take some mighty political upheaval down there for that to happen and I do not expect to see it in my lifetime.
- However, where freedom of speech exists, there is always hope. Three cheers to Plenty of Fish for providing a forum where ordinary people can have their say. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/29/2005 11:39:22 PM | Mrgoodwhatever
Your post is not only racist but also so far beyond ignorance it is almost laughable. Your anti-semetic view points are just plain stupid. Your comments are wrong and show`s that your pond scum of the lowest order. Have a good night you Hitler loving puke! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 1:31:18 AM | | mrGoo, you speak as if the successful people in this country (which you claim are all Jewish) are not americans themselves. I don't think you understand what you're talking about. I think you're just intimidated by what you don't understand. | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 3:03:04 PM | mrGoo, you speak as if the successful people in this country (which you claim are all Jewish) are not americans themselves.
No he did not to your first charge and possibly to the second.
Which in my mind is understandable. If a Jewish American citizen has a deeper loyalty to Israel's interests over and above America's interests .... wel then, I would say their priorities and allegiance are fair game to be questioned.
I don't think you understand what you're talking about.
I disagree, mrgoodhands seems quite aware of the relevant facts.
I think you're just intimidated by what you don't understand.
I think the American Congress is very 'intimidated' by Jewish lobby interests which they completely understand as a political 'third rail' . And the rest of us ARE defacto intimidated by what we don't understand .... because of that.
OH and Dmotz .... nothing racist about it. I would have the same opinions about the Chinese for instance if they influenced America to fight their secret proxy wars, or had the same disproportionate influence, relative to their percentage of population, on American politics.
Why is it that even any notice of Israel or Jewish political actions are defacto labeled as anti-semetic?
Aren't we allowed to disagree or even note a predominant Jewish influence in Hollywood, the media, and American dentistry without descending to automatically invoking the race baiting card?
Not all Jews are Zionist and not all Jewish people are interested in exerting undue influence in a negative way on American politics.
Let me guess Yams and Dmotz, would you happen to be Jewish and perhaps overly sensitive toward this subject?
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 3:13:43 PM | mrGoo, you speak as if the successful people in this country (which you claim are all Jewish) are not americans themselves.
No he did not to your first charge and possibly to the second. First of all, it's not a charge, and you misunderstand.
Let me guess Yams and Dmotz, would you happen to be Jewish and perhaps overly sensitive toward this subject?
I can't speak for Dmotz, but I am not jewish. And it isn't about oversensitivity. It's about differing opinions; different perspectives. Comments like this, and even moreso assumptions like this, are beneath you dar. You usually present yourself in a much more intelligent way. Being so dismissive of others' opinions is something that the trolls do. Not you.
Why is it that even any notice of Israel or Jewish political actions are defacto labeled as anti-semetic? I understand your frustration and I do agree that this happens quite a bit. The de facto labeling, I mean. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 3:23:20 PM |
Let me guess Yams and Dmotz, would you happen to be Jewish and perhaps overly sensitive toward this subject
Abate Utah ? Not to mention...he looks nothing like a typical Jewish person. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 4:33:39 PM |
I can't speak for Dmotz, but I am not jewish. And it isn't about oversensitivity. It's about differing opinions; different perspectives. Comments like this, and even moreso assumptions like this, are beneath you dar. You usually present yourself in a much more intelligent way. Being so dismissive of others' opinions is something that the trolls do. Not you.
I wasn't 'trying' to be a troll ..... I don't know how asking if someone shares common nationality with an 'interest' or position they are defending, is being so.
I didn't intend it to be 'dismissive', more like asking for full disclosure and 'putting ones cards on the table', but perhaps it is an assumption that when someone gets automatically 'defensive' about Israel, or Israel's influence in American politics, that I wonder why?
It is not too far a strectch to think they might hold common interests. It wasn't meant to be disrespectful or derisive. I see nothing derisively indicative in the fact that someone is Jewish.
I happen to admire a lot of differing perspectives of Jewish culture, in the areas of art, science, music, and spirituality.
There is that, but then I also deeply disagree with the Israeli 'settler movement' and mentality, and frequently with the State of Israels official policies, as well as with Jewish American PAC's overdue influence within the very power centers of American governance. That I do feel strongly is an abuse of power, one that is very craftily exploited by loopholes in our current system.
I don't decry Jewish Americans for having an affinity to Israel, I would believe that is only to be (understandably) expected, just as any other group has their own interests at heart. I believe they have a perfect right to lobby for consideration of those interests.
However when they do so successfully, it should not be to the direct detriment of other American citizens, which unfortunately is often the case, and certainly so in the case of the Iraq War.
Perhaps that will help clear this up, I didn't mean any disrespect by that question, and whether you are Jewish or not, I will appologize, if that seemed offensive in any regard.
Cracked, I don't make broad assumptions about how someone 'looks' to devine their ethnicity.
That is why I ask.
peace
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 4:36:37 PM |
I wasn't 'trying' to be a troll ..... I don't know how asking if someone shares common nationality with an 'interest' or position they are defending, is being so. You misunderstood; I did not call you a "troll." Apparently I should have made that clearer. My mistake. Sorry. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 5:08:56 PM | It wasn't a mistake for you to say what you did, at least I didn't think so, I didn't take it negatively.
More so my mistake with the phrase 'Let me guess' that should have been more properly, 'Allow me to ask' .... as that more closely communicates my thoughts as to wondering if the strong disagreement with mrgoodhands post could be based in ethnicity.
I will admit one thought regarding that though is your screen name, and I don't know exactly why, perhaps it 'sounds' Yiddish to me. I have no idea its true 'significance'.
My other unfortunate word is 'charge' perhaps 'contention' would have been better, but while on that subject, I almost forgot, what is it that I didn't understand?
darjeeling | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 6:16:04 PM | | I think you're feeling "verklempt," but my yiddish isn't very good. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 7:53:08 PM | i find it amazing that everytime I confront someone and ask them to provide a DIRECT QUOTE regarding something they claim was said they either tap dance around it and it becomes a "grey area" OR they fall silent!
things that make you go HMMMMM?? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 8:51:32 PM | Perhaps folks are just becoming bored with your ruse, your tactics, your argument, your song and dance spaceblue.
It is almost too silly to comment on at this point.
We are not in a court of law to demand the technical 'legal proof' as YOU require it, there are numerous instances of administration war hawks who did the deed by misdirection, and in your terms, IMPLIED the connection.
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 8:57:49 PM | "Perhaps folks are just becoming bored with your ruse, your tactics, your argument, your song and dance spaceblue."
Exactly. File under: Ignore | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 9:00:27 PM | Oh for goodness sakes, I said I was heading out. Didn't see that post clearly. Okay, here's a link to the White House site pertaining to that:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html
But seeing as I had to google for 5 minutes, how about statements this year by Bush in his radio address of June 18:"“We went to war because we were attacked."
They have in the past and continue link the invasion of Iraq with the events of September 2001. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 9:10:27 PM | Verklempt: Extremely emotional. On the verge of tears. Also spelled 'farklempt'
OT: If you are for any war I can only offer this bit of Yiddish prose:
I think the yenteh is a nudje and meshugeh, and for the goyeh to be so farkuckt I can only say kish mir en toches.
I dunno. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 10:15:26 PM | phew, all I did was to pose three or four simple questions and make a couple of very obvious observations about the state of the American political scene today. Apparently even that little is too much for the Rabid Right. Once again, having posed these well thought out and well meant questions I have received no thoughtful replies, with one exception more in the way of a clarifying defense (thankyou once again Darjeeling), to any of these important issues. Most of the remarks were beneath contempt and I will not respond to them, but, someone said I was "intimidated by what I don't understand" - that statement needs to be addressed;
- So, tell me, what is it I don't understand about any of the events I queried? Was I wrong about the overweening influence of the Jewish lobby in American politics today? Was I wrong about the total domination of that bastion of propaganda, Hollywood (not to mention an already large and ever-growing proportion of the remainder of American media), by Jewish interests? And was it wrong, to the point of being heretical as some of you seem to think, to even question or bring up the subject at all? If I were truly "intimidated" on the subject, as many of you seem to be, then I would not have had the nerve to raise it at all, right?
Some of you seem to be so mired in the letter and verse of who said what on capitol hill last week that you have lost all perspective on the "big picture". C'mon guys, let's try to deal with the real issues here, forget the smokescreen and the propaganda - that's what THEY want us to focus on. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 11:20:09 PM | No people I am not Jewish. I think that no matter your faith, you deserve the right to practice it. I got pissed at the MORON`S (MRSBADPAWS) critisizm of the Jews, His sorry ass was outta line! Period.
Mrwhatever. It is easy for you to post your garbage when you are unknown. The internet allows this. You do not even have your pic on the site. Give Yoda a hug for me space boy!
Thus endth the sermon! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 11:27:14 PM |
Are Americans comfortable with having their entire national interest heavily skewed, co-opted and aligned with Jewish interests to the detriment of their own self-determination and very security?
No sir, I am not at all 'comfortable' with that.
To all those who doubt this is actually the case, perhaps you all missed where Philp Zelicow, the Executive Director of the 9-11 Commision (itself an eventually useless whitewash job) in a rare moment of intellectual transparency, told a private audience that it was his belief that the Iraq War was hatched more out of concern for Israeli security than American security.
And as Pat Buchanan put it:
Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?
What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.
Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington’s ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”
darjeeling | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 222 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/30/2005 11:33:47 PM | Just dropping by casually
But it appears to me that Questions were asked
The script asked questions rather than made statements
The day questions cannot be asked will be a sad one
We may not agree with the 'Line' of the questions, but their validity still stands
I am not American so cannot answer these questions, as I do not know the answers
It would be good to read an unbiased reply to them
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/31/2005 2:05:25 AM |
I think you're feeling "verklempt," but my yiddish isn't very good You are SO right... I SUSPECTED it was "v" something and googled it and got the "faclempt."  Didn't look at it long enough to see they were all blogs and such that followed with people eventually saying that they knew they spelled it wrong. I should be ashamed of myself! Actaully, no, wait. I'm not jewish. I'm allowed to sound it out. (Luckily I have my super duper little helper that follows me around everywhere to correct, criticize, and report. Here's his formal report:
Verklempt: Extremely emotional. On the verge of tears. Also spelled 'farklempt' I TOLD him he only had to supply definitions when people were confused about meanings of words. He's such an overachiever.)
i find it amazing that everytime I confront someone and ask them to provide a DIRECT QUOTE regarding something they claim was said they either tap dance around it and it becomes a "grey area" OR they fall silent!
I know that when I tried to "talk" to you about it, you weren't very nice and seemed to have no interest in a conversation but instead just making further demands. Here's an example of what you're doing.
Me: George isn't the 43rd president of the united states. He has NEVER said that he is the 43rd president of the united states. HE IS NOT! All you crazies out there that say he is, SHOW ME a DIRECT quote of him saying "I'm the 43rd president of the united states."
rational pof posters: But he just IS. Look. Here are the 42 before him. Here is a picture of him wearing a hat with the number 43, next to his dad with the number 41 on his. Don't you think that...
me cutting in: no no no no no. I said SHOW ME A DIRECT QUOTE! None of this "hat" song and dance. None of this history lesson. You say he's the 43rd president. I say SHOW ME WHERE GEORGE W. BUSH DIRECTLY SAYS THAT HE'S THE 43rd PRESIDENT. You can't. You're all stupid.
rational pof posters: thinking:well good lord, this isn't any sort of rational conversation. We'll just move on.
me: hey! where'd everybody go? Funny how when I confront someone they either tapdance away or fall silent...
See how silly it is?
The main problem here seems to me to be that when people believed that the saddam was responsible for 9/11, the ambiguity was left to foster, and sometimes (seemingly) intentionally fostered by the white house.
Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
Now of COURSE people are going to believe what they want to believe. So we don't even need to review that. But in a situation like this I think it would have been appropriate in general for misconceptions to be actively CLEARED UP, not left to fester or to have fuel added to the fire. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/31/2005 6:12:04 PM |
But seeing as I had to google for 5 minutes, how about statements this year by Bush in his radio address of June 18:"“We went to war because we were attacked."
Yes we went to war BECAUSE WE WERE ATTACKED. Are you saying that you can not make the distinction between a PRE EMPTIVE strike and the battle we waged against those actually responsible for the act?
WOW.
No this is not a court of law, but does that make FACTS any less relavent? So we should just allow people to call our leaders LIARS and not confront the situation?
Why would one get upset with the TACTICS of asking for FACTS and providing FACTS? Well we know why one would be adverse to that, they will lose their argument.
SO apparently people want to stay dumb and hang out in that "grey area". I know black and white is frustrating when one is wrong....and doesn''t want to admit/accept it.
Yes 911 is why we fight. Does that mean that every fight we wage is against those responsible for 911? Or like Bush said (AND THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA WAS BEHIND HIM WHEN HE SAID IT".....
"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
The MAJORITY of America supported him when he SAID this. Now he has ACTED based on what he said and we want to say he was wrong?
This is amazing to me. Simply amazing to me. If one takes the time to take what was actually said, read it FOR THEMSELVES and has half a brain, they will see that it has been distorted and so forth.
NOW why is it a problem to confront someone who says that a member of this administration said something and ask for a DIRECT QUOTE? If the individual actually said what the poster is claiming a DIRECT QUOTE is no problem. I still don't understand why that is a "tactic"
If a TACTIC is to confront stupidity and ignorance with FACTS and direct quotes, then I guess ok fine, I will accept that.
I guess anyone can believe anything they want, they can say anything they want, this is America and we have freedom of speech, but don't make me out to be the bad guy because someone says someone in this administration said something or LIED, and I ask for a direct quote to back it up! If they are RIGHT, then fine and I will accept that. But everytime I have asked for a DIRECT QUOTE when someone has said SO AND SO SAID...or SO AND SO LIED, all I get is "well that is a grey area" or "I am paraphrasing"
Lack of independent thought and just repeating what the pundits on your side of the aisle have spoonfed you just exposes your ignorance, and I don't care what side of the aisle you are on!
So with that....I will confront anyone here that says "so and so lied" or "so and so said" and can not provide a direct quote. If you can't back up your opinion with FACT...keep it to yourself.
My favorite is the ignorant argument that we invaded iraq because the administration claimed they were behind 911.
Kind of funny how that is possible when
the resolution authorizing military force said NOTHING like that
it was a "pre emptive" strike, pre emptive meaning before an attack, so if it was a "pre emptive strike' how the hell could they have been involved in an attack?
and a COMPLETE DIRECT QUOTE from GWB....
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
Yet ignorant fools that don't want to see outside their "grey area" want to believe just the opposite.
What did Bush and the administration ACTUALLY say??
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.
President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.
They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.
We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't know.
Vice-President****Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.
Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
WOW...no where in ANY of these COMPLETE quotes does it say that this administration said iraq was responsible for 9/11. No connection implied.
AND of course my all time favorite....
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
So even though this is not a court of law, that makes it OK for people to remain ignorant? People can just say stupid things and not have to back them up? I am wrong for asking for some proof of what someone claims someone in this administration said?
Newsflash, that is how INTELLIGENT people debate! | |
|
| |
|
| Page 9 of 54
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
